European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> URSATI-POLATA PARISH, Gheorghe PETER and Ioan CHINDRIS v Romania - 20873/02 [2011] ECHR 1153 (28 June 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1153.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1153

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Applications nos. 20873/02, 23629/04 and 14912/05
by URSAŢI-POLATA PARISH, Gheorghe PETER
and Ioan CHINDRIŞ
against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 June 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Ján Šikuta, President,
Ineta Ziemele,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 29 January 2002, 24 March 2004 and 15 April 2005, respectively,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the Romanian Government and by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Romanian nationals whose names and further identity information are indicated in the appended table. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr. Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The first two applications concern civil litigations regarding restitution of property. The third application concerns criminal proceedings brought against the applicant for misfeasance in public office. Details as to the subject matter of each application are included in the table appended hereto.

COMPLAINTS

All applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.

The applicant in application no. 20873/02 also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about an infringement of its property rights.

The applicant in application no. 23629/04 also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings and the impartiality of the judges.

The applicant in application no. 14912/05 also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings, under Article 6 § 2 about the infringement of his right to be presumed innocent and under Article 6 § 3 (d) about failure of the domestic courts to hear one witness.

THE LAW

A Joinder of the applications

Having regard to the similarity of the legal issues raised by these applications the Court finds it appropriate to join them.

B. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings

The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

The Government contested that argument. The Court does not find it necessary to examine the entirety of the arguments advanced by the Government since in any event the applications are inadmissible for the reasons stated below.

The Court recalls that in criminal matters, the period to be taken into account for the purpose of assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings begins to run as soon as a person is “charged” (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 73, Series A no. 51). In civil cases, such period usually begins on the date the applicant concerned became a party to the proceedings.

Furthermore, the Court notes that for the purpose of calculating the reasonableness of the proceedings it shall take into account the entirety of the proceedings, including the extraordinary appeals provided they were decisive for the determination of civil rights and obligations (see Poiss v. Austria, 23 April 1987, § 50, Series A no. 117). However, in cases where extraordinary appeals were lodged, only the periods when the cases were actually pending before the courts are to be taken into account, thus excluding the periods between the adoption of final and binding judgments and their annulment in the course of extraordinary proceedings (see Cerăceanu v. Romania (no. 1), no. 31250/02, § 51, 4 March 2008, Seregina v. Russia, no. 12793/02, § 92, 30 November 2006).

Therefore, in the light of the above the Court notes that the proceedings have lasted for four years and ten months for two levels of jurisdiction in respect of application no. 20873/02, nine months and eighteen days for three levels of jurisdiction in respect of application no. 23629/04 and six years and one month for three levels of jurisdiction in respect of application no. 14912/05.

The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

The Court notes that all three cases were of medium level of complexity. The Court also notes that there were no significant delays in the proceedings to be attributed to the domestic authorities. In respect of application no. 14912/05, the Court further notes that the proceedings were pending before the prosecutor’s office followed by three levels of jurisdiction, thus lasting less than two years for each level of jurisdiction. The applicant was never imprisoned during this period, and the risk of him being convicted to a prison sentence was relatively low in view of the charges. In these circumstances, the Court does not find the length of the proceedings to be incompatible with its case law on the matter (see Farcaş and Others v. Romania, no. 67020/01, § 35, 10 November 2005).

It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

C. Other alleged violations of the Convention

Referring to Articles 6 §§ 1, 2, 3 (d), and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complained of further aspects related to the proceedings they were involved in.

Having regard to all the materials in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in these provisions in that respect. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Marialena Tsirli Ján Šikuta
Deputy Registrar President

No.	Case no. and date of lodging	Applicant’s Details	Length of the proceedings	Subject Matter
1.	20873/02 29 January 2002	PAROHIA URSAŢI POLATA	Beginning: 29 September 1995 (the date when the applicant lodged a property claim pursuant to Law 18/1991). End of the ordinary proceedings: 20 November 1997 Endorsement of the applicant’s extraordinary appeal: 23 December 1998 (judgment of the Târgu Jiu District Court). Reversal of the decision allowing the applicant’s extraordinary appeal: 18 September 2001 (judgment of the Craiova Court of Appeal). Length of the proceedings: 4 years and 10 months.	Action lodged by third parties against the applicant for annulment of an administrative decision issued in favour of the applicant pursuant to Law 18/1991.
2.	23629/04 24 March 2004	PETER Gheorghe	21 October 1999 (date of lodging of the civil action) Beginning: 3 February 2000 (the applicant became a party to the proceedings). End of the ordinary proceedings: 21 November 2000 (the Timisoara Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law). Endorsement of the applicant’s extraordinary appeal: 13 February 2003 (judgment of the Timişoara Court of Appeal). Endorsement of the third person’s extraordinary appeal: 11 June 2003 (judgment of the Timişoara Court of Appeal). Endorsement of the supervisory review lodged by the General Prosecutor on behalf of the applicant: 20 October 2005 (judgment of the High Court of Cassation and Justice). Length of the proceedings: 9 months, 18 days.	Action lodged by third persons for annulment of the applicant’s sale purchase agreement over an apartment.
3.	14912/05 15 April 2005	CHINDRIŞ Ioan, Romanian citizen, born on 14 May 1953, in Maramureş county, residing in Dragomireşti, Maramureş county, Romania, represented by Jurj Vasile, attorney at law	15 February 1998 (beginning of the investigation). Beginning: 11 February 1999 (the applicant’s first declaration before the prosecutor; the date he was informed of the charges). End: 16 March 2005 (judgment of the High Court of Cassation and Justice). Length: 6 years, 1 month.	Criminal proceedings brought against the applicant for misfeasance in public office (Article 248 of the Romanian Criminal Code). By a final judgment of 16 March 2005 the High Court of Cassation and Justice imposed a fine on the applicant for the crime of misfeasance in public office.